Ok so, aside from Binyamin's personal definition of the word "Nation", I had a thought on this thread's topic; World Nation

If the countries of the world were to form some sort of Planetary Government. I wonder what that might look like:

• It'd have a *huge* diversity of races, cultures and religions contained
  
• It would would have the daunting task of reconciling age-old disputes between the nation-states in governing worldwide
  
• Civil rights, on a global scale, would need to somehow be resolved in order to have a world-standard in which enforcement could take place
  
• There'd likely be a polarization between particular forms of conservationism and particular forms of liberalism.
  
• Many laws would have to be left up to the individual states, while "nation-wide" laws would probably be enforced by a 'federal agency'
  
• There would continue to be, for a long time, many individuals who want to be on their own and would end up being 'prodded' into the organization or be left to fend on their own. Perhaps as a territory, or some such.
  

Sound familiar? I'll bet there's probably a few nations - currently - who face these kinds of issues. Their success could be a portent to the future success/failure of a world-government.

I think the bottom line comes down to an: Are we ready yet?-Kind of question. I think it beyond dispute that trans-nation interaction is growing, and will continue to grow. In this, interaction becomes so regular that the traditional lines blur. Cultures will increasingly mix, and bloodlines merge. It seems to me that given what we know is happening, such an entity is probably inevitable - though to what extent one can't say.

We're all human; and despite our differences, undeniable commonalities exist. Whether or not to expand/formalize a world coalition (that is concerned all common-human interests) would necessarily depend on whether or not there are enough commonalities to net a proportional payoff.

So, the debate will rage on I reckon.

Once you get a government to be responsible over too many people it loses the personal touch. It becomes a bureaucracy and everyone becomes a number. Even if there were a world government, it could only be responsible for international issues. A world government could never be responsible for things such as wellfare and other social services.

Also think about cultures. Cultures only exist because of a community. Now in Israel is the Holiday of Sukkot. Every single household is sleeping outside and eating outside in a temporary dwelling. You walk down the street and you see all of the many wooden tents. And you go from tent to tent visiting people and get served food and drink. This Holiday is only successful because it is within a community.
What about Halloween? If kids walked around here dressed up in scary costumes knocking on doors threating people with a prank if they don't get candy, they would get arrested and thrown in the looney bin. Haloween is only successful because it exists in the community. Also think about things such as food. Muslims have a certain diet, and Indians have a certain diet and could not possibly eat Muslim food. For me it is very easy to go to a grocery store and know that everything in the store is Kosher.

I am much happier being a part of a specific Nation. And it makes visiting another Nation so much more special. A place with specific traditions and dress and food and songs and dances.

Keeping the separation between nations is the only way that the richness of cultures can survive the test of time. World Peace and Unity must come despite the separation like the example that I previously gave of the human body. The liver is only successful because the entire liver is made of liver cells and not heart cells. But the body still exists in peace as a single unity.

in answer to your original questions

• the need to abandon religion or unify it.
  

if one was to unite the world through jihad, than the latter, if through political means, than the government must take a firm hands off policy

• would the outcome be of an anarchy or democracy or totalitarian?
  

usually such a collossus would have to be either a dictatorship or an oligarchy, but would also have to be regionized to an incredible extent, almost like feudalism minus the serfs

• Once establishing worldwide nation would there be peace or would it evoke hate.
  

the entire purpose of a geopolitcal state is to transform any large scale conflicts between groups into smaller scale conflicts between individuals, lilke family feuds, business warfare or a coorporate rivalry, such are the conflicts that provide more growth than destruction and should be the object of any government

• would the public be allowed to know of an actual mergence?
  

once again, it depends on the nationalistic principal, if through a military or rabble-rousing persona, the public cant help but know, but if through an elaborate, subtle coup, most people dont even pay enough attention to verify that their own state maintains sovereignty as we speak, and the masses would be easily confounded

• would it be economically beneficial to everybody
  

the breakup of tarrif barriers and the decline of undeveloped nations undermining the developed ones via demi-slave labor (easily remedied by a universal minimum wage and a government willing to be a nonbiased arbiter in all worker-employer struggles would bring about a boomtime equivalent to the industrial revolution

• would there just be moral chaos or allow for a broader view of rationalizing?
  

no comment, thats up to whether or not the populace would choose to embrace enlightenment

• Would it be a complex bureaucracy, or simple ( no its not fun to consider the fact that the system would probably just branch off into subnational 'bureaus' anyways)
  

it would have to be a burocracy, a streamlined one, but a burocracy nonetheless, it is physically impossible for a small number of people to look after 6.5 billion people, napoleon only had to deal with 30 million, and he lasted less than a decade total

• Would scientific progress become stagnant or become more innovative?
  

the coupling of no more need for military funding and lack of population killing wars would force the government to give out more grants and jumpstart any scientific progress it could

• Would this just evoke a World War 3 due to potential instability, and therefore providing the chance to destroy humanity making the unity concept completely irrational for our time. Or would the World War three be a stage to the completion of a world wide single nation?
  

if there is a world war three, either a it will be a war of specialists where the casualties will be at their worst as bad as the last world war, which would be an ideal crucible for a global state, or a nuclear war, which is an enormous game over